So if it is true that Ecuador have granted diplomatic status to Julian Assange, our government has no choice but to recognize it. All we can do is ask him to leave.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works - foreign diplomats need to be accredited by the receiving nations. The government had the choice whether to recognize Assange's diplomatic status or not, and they chose not to.

That's not how it works - foreign diplomats need to be accredited by the receiving nations. The government had the choice whether to recognize Assange's diplomatic status or not, and they chose not to.

Click to expand...

Well please could you say where Craig Murray is wrong as his blog post appears comprehensively to demonstrate the opposite.

Article 9 1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.

2.If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

yes, so they would have a reasonable time to recall him. From Murray's link:

*****
Plainly the only one of these which applies in the Assange case is Article 9. Julian Assange is persona non grata – unwelcome - to the UK government. That is a legitimate reply to notification, but comes following the appointment; it does not pre-empt the appointment.

Here is the key point. A member of staff below head of mission can already have entered the country before appointment, and their diplomatic immunity starts from the moment their appointment is notified, and NOT from the moment it is accepted. Article 39 (i) could not be plainer:

1.Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters
the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from
the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry
as may be agreed.​

I think all that means in practice is that there may have been a brief window of time where Assange might have been able to claim diplomatic immunity if he had sneaked out of the embassy to do creepy sex stuff on British territory.

"In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission."

Terminating his "functions with the mission" would have been the "appropriate" step in this case, Ecuador can also "recall" him to Quito if it wishes, but before he can go there Assange will still be expected to answer for breaching his bail conditions years before the attempt to give him diplomatic immunity.

yes, so they would have a reasonable time to recall him. From Murray's link:

*****
Plainly the only one of these which applies in the Assange case is Article 9. Julian Assange is persona non grata – unwelcome - to the UK government. That is a legitimate reply to notification, but comes following the appointment; it does not pre-empt the appointment.

Here is the key point. A member of staff below head of mission can already have entered the country before appointment, and their diplomatic immunity starts from the moment their appointment is notified, and NOT from the moment it is accepted. Article 39 (i) could not be plainer:

1.Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters
the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from
the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry
as may be agreed.​

Click to expand...

If he left the embassy under his new found diplomatic status he’d have been nicked on his way to Heathrow and held on remand whilst the Vienna convention was tested in a UK court.

WPC Yvonne Fletcher’s murderer was allowed to leave under this convention, most who are accused of serious crimes that are valid in the protected’s country of origin too have their immunity waived to face the force of the law.
The convention exists to stop diplomats getting nicked for trivial offences, possibly due to cultural insensitivity, that would cause agg between both countries. What Equador is trying is blatant abuse of the convention and so likely to fail in court.

If he left the embassy under his new found diplomatic status he’d have been nicked on his way to Heathrow and held on remand whilst the Vienna convention was tested in a UK court.

WPC Yvonne Fletcher’s murderer was allowed to leave under this convention

Click to expand...

Alleged murderer, I would guess.

...most who are accused of serious crimes that are valid in the protected’s country of origin too have their immunity waived to face the force of the law.
The convention exists to stop diplomats getting nicked for trivial offences, possibly due to cultural insensitivity, that would cause agg between both countries. What Equador is trying is blatant abuse of the convention and so likely to fail in court.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that it is more to do with being able to carry out your country's mission without fear of becoming a political prisoner.

No, actual murderer. The fatal shot came from inside the embassy, everyone inside the embassy was allowed to travel back to Tripoli.

Click to expand...

Or next door which had links to various spooky agencies. Dispatches (Channel 4) had an episode, "Murder in St. James's" 1996 devoted to the subject.

Issues raised by the Dispatches programme about the killing of WPC Fletcher were later raised in Parliament by Tam Dalyell on 8 May 1996. Mr Dalyell qualified before Parliament that the programme had been exceptionally well researched and that it had featured the statements from people whose calibre and relevant experience was beyond question or compare. Contributors to Dispatches included a senior ballistics officer of the British Army, Lieutenant Colonel George Styles, and Dr Bernard Knight, a senior and distinguished Home Office pathologist.

MP Tam Dalyell raised a total of eight separate issues in relation to the murder of WPC Fletcher, including that Yvonne Fletcher appeared to have have been shot from a different direction than that alleged; that huge discrepancies existed between the reports of pathologist Dr Ian West whose post mortem report differed significantly from his analysis presented at the inquest; and that WPC Fletcher's injuries could not have been caused by the alleged combination of gun and firing position.
When the makers of 'Murder at St James's', Fulcrum Productions, attempted to interview the pathologist, Dr Ian West, about the inconsistencies in his reports, he cancelled two appointments and then refused completely to meet.

Why the fuck would Libyan diplomatic staff shoot WPC Yvonne Fletcher? And this is the real reason for the Libyans all leaving without any of them being apprehended or the embassy stormed - they had nothing to do with it.

Why the fuck would Libyan diplomatic staff shoot WPC Yvonne Fletcher? And this is the real reason for the Libyans all leaving without any of them being apprehended or the embassy stormed - they had nothing to do with it.

Why the fuck would Libyan diplomatic staff shoot WPC Yvonne Fletcher? And this is the real reason for the Libyans all leaving without any of them being apprehended or the embassy stormed - they had nothing to do with it.

Why the fuck would Libyan diplomatic staff shoot WPC Yvonne Fletcher? And this is the real reason for the Libyans all leaving without any of them being apprehended or the embassy stormed - they had nothing to do with it.

I see nothing objectionable in the article I linked to, which I'd just found on google. It looks well argued and informative. I don't much care what else is on the site which of course I didn't check, but seeing as you guys do, consider it retracted.

I leave you with the Dispatches programme on Channel 4 1996 which I am sure proves the WPC Yvonne Fletcher assassination as a false flag.